Re: [Manycouches] Daniel presentation @ 113

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jay,

Thanks for your message.  Please see below.

On 12.04.22 11:56, Jay Daley wrote:
> Hi Eliot
>
> The major point about offsetting, which I think we agree about, is 
> that offsetting is an "after the fact" action, not a preventative 
> measure.  I understand that some will say "what’s the harm in meeting 
> X times, if we offset all the emissions" but, without commenting on 
> the rights and wrongs of that, the response to that should not be to 
> attack offsetting as a concept.  Instead, we should be taking the 
> approach that it is vital for us to offset all of our emissions, 
> whatever the level of those emissions.  In other words whether we meet 
> three times a year or once a year, we should be offsetting those 
> emissions.

I 100% agree.  And I further agree that we MUST meet.  I opine that we 
should meet in person LESS but when we do meet, we SHOULD offset our 
impact.  What we SHOULDN'T do is think of offsets as a pure substitute.


>
> When it comes to choosing the offsetting mechanism(s), the plan I 
> outlined at shmoo was to bring in experts to hold some open sessions 
> where they explain the various methods and help us make an informed 
> choice.  As someone in shmoo pointed out, one of the largest aggregate 
> emitters of carbon are kerosene lamps and schemes aimed at replacing 
> those are direct offset schemes, not a carbon credit market.
>
Good to know.


>
> When we discuss how often to meet in person, I strongly recommend 
> looking at the data from our post-meeting surveys: 
> https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/past/ Reading through all of those 
> shows some clear data points:
>
> - productivity at in-person meetings is, on average, much higher than 
> remote meetings,.  Sure, we can’t quantify this and we don’t have the 
> other links in the chain to measure if that increase in productivity 
> leads to a reduction in effort elsewhere.
>
> - the ability of people to come to in-person meetings depends very 
> much on where the meeting is held.  If we drop down to one meeting per 
> year then we will rotate through every region over a three year cycle 
> and for many people that will mean they can only meet in person once 
> every three years.
>
> Neither of those are meant to be "that’s why we should continue to 
> meet 3x a year" arguments, just points to consider in the overall debate.

As I wrote, I didn't provide a specific recommendation.  That's because 
I could see this working in quite a number of ways forward, and I'd like 
to see shmoo explore them.  A few possibilities include the following:

  * Mandatory virtual interim meetings at a certain tempo
  * Mandatory in-person interim meetings
  * Raising the requirements for working groups to meet in person,
    including at the plenary meetings.
      o Required controversy
      o Virtual meetings held
  * A cap on the number of in person meetings for working groups.

These are just a few possibilities, and it is by no means an exhaustive 
list.

I realize figuring our way forward here would wreak havoc with our 
conference planning, and with the lives of the people who provide us an 
excellent experience, but at least to me, the risks of not acting are 
too high.

Eliot